Having run head-on into a wall of seemingly unexpected opposition, the SFMTA was forced to revisit and redraw their plans for removing metered parking along Polk Street to make way for dedicated bike lanes from Union to McAllister.
The revised project has been divided into two segments, with two different designs for Polk Street, one from Union to California and another from California to McAllister.
Roughly 90% of the metered parking spaces on Polk Street between Union and California will be retained by adding a green bike lane in one direction, adding green shared lane markings in the other direction, and implementing morning tow-away regulations on the shared side of the street to provide more space for cars and bikes to share the road (click plan to enlarge):From California to McAllister, roughly 50% of the metered parking spaces on Polk will be removed in order to install buffered bike lanes on either side of the street with a raised “cycle track” in the southbound direction (click plan to enlarge):

High visibility crosswalks, red zones near intersections to improve visibility, and corner “bulb-out” sidewalk extensions at key locations remain part of the overall plan for both segements.
The revised plan and designs will be presented to the public on July 25 (5pm at 1751 Sacramento Street) after which they will undergo a full environmental review. If approved by the SFMTA Board of Directors, the project will implemented as part of the planned repaving of Polk Street in 2015.

Not to take these drawings too literally, but I hope they plan to paint those bike lanes THROUGH the intersections. This is how it’s done in bike-friendlier cities in Europe and it’s a clear signal to turning vehicles that they are crossing bike traffic. If they don’t mark them this amounts to nothing but a green sidewalk.

A classic case of the discriminatory behavior of the anti-car fascists at the SFMTA;
Once again, they impose their insane plans on the poorer neighborhood where residents are less likely to speak up.
The moneyed north end of Polk gets a reasonable adjustment, the poor south end gets the ridiculous experiment du jour with tacky green paint and the stench of entitlement.

Settle down, Beavis! This is bike lanes, not a Bolshevik revolution. IMO, the biggest problem on lower Polk is double-parking and taxis loading/dropping people in the middle of intersections. This is what’s forcing cyclists to swerve into the middle of the street and I’ve seen several collisions happen that way. I’m not convinced this will do anything to alleviate double-parking but it keeps the cyclists safely on the inside. This is a reasonable traffic improvement and I’m by no means an anti-car fascist. Cyclists who get hit because they run stops and red lights can rot in hell for all I care.

I hope they forget about the green marking. They tried green bike stripes in Palo Alto years ago only to find that they disappeared when it rained. The bike lane marking, not the bicyclists. The green just didn’t show up.

If this project banned automobiles from Polk Street and did not involve extensive public outreach and participation, then egg_cream_of_OCD’s description of the SFMTA might be accurate. If San Francisco would meet its lofty goal of 20% of trips being done by bicycle by 2020, we would have a quieter, cleaner, and safer city for all.

@ Sprague “If San Francisco would meet its lofty goal of 20% of trips being done by bicycle by 2020, we would have a quieter, cleaner, and safer city for all”.
….cleaner???? Now does that also reduce the shit and pee in my neighborhood? Oh did i mention the barf too?

The new plan is a pretty clever comprise considering SFMTA usually railroads public comments when plans actually get implimented.
I have to agree with taco taco. Add to the city’s color scheme of green and red, we also have white, orange, garish yellow corner curb cut warning signs and blue (handicap)markers. That’s SF living for you. It seems as more policies or rules are made, more signage is bred….which means more graphic overload to come.

Actually this is a travesty of planning. Years of study and community outreach gets tossed out the window when a couple business owners bus in their friends and relatives from other cities.
Regardless of whether you think the outcome is better, it was another typical failure of process in SF, which will only encourage more of the same.

I have cycled on Larkin, and used to do so regularly to get from Soma or Western Addition back to Nob Hill (Sacramento & Leavenworth) There are a couple of small hills, but it’s very feasible until you get to California.
You could definitely take away a lane from Larkin without having much of an effect on traffic, then shift over to Polk at California or Sacramento. Probably easier to keep the lanes on Polk, but Larkin has more road to give.

I have cycled on Larkin a few times but the problem is with the first few blocks. 3 lanes of cars in one direction can catch all green lights by doing 30MPH which creates a freeway effect.
Plus you have the Walking Dead crossing randomly at Ellis, Eddy, Turk, which is never good when you have 3 lanes of cars moving at the same speed at rush hour.
Polk is much more tame and the 2-way is more natural. Imagine the accidents at the crossings with bikes coming down Larkin while cars turn left…

“because nothing says bedroom community more than bike lanes”
Like Palo Alto.
“we would have a quieter, cleaner, and safer city for all.”
Yes, a great description of a lovely bedroom community.
So egg cream says this is the 21st century version of the redevelopment of Western Addition? Sounds about right – a small group of thinking they know better than the residences in the city put their stamp on it.

“Years of study and community outreach gets tossed out the window when a couple business owners bus in their friends and relatives from other cities.”
WHAT community outreach? The neighborhood learned about this ONLY after the original plans were drawn, and approved. I really think the outrage came from the fact it was such a surprise to business owners and neighbors. If the SFMTA had included them in initial planning there could have been a compromise. If you watch the May 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting (which is online) most business owners said they would be for removing parking on Polk if the city were to consider allowing a private parking garage to be built on the site of an existing parking lot that the owners had asked to build a 3 story garage on. The SFMTA said that ANY additional parking in this neighborhood was “out of the question”.

The best solution would have been a parking garage and separated bike lanes. That way everyone gets something and it is a win-win. Maybe we can still get to it.
This solution is half-baked and won’t satisfy anyone.
Larkin doesn’t work for the worst part of Polk, which is north of California.

WHAT community outreach?
Um, the stuff that took place for more than three years? I knew about this plan in 2010 – if it took you by surprise you just weren’t paying attention.
The idea that the city needs to knock on each person’s door and calmly explain every piece of anything that happens is really bizarre. These plans are public and posted in about a zillion places online and in the real world. You’d have to consciously avoid them to not notice.

Go run a stop sign in the name of all things freedom and justice! Swing into the crosswalk, flip off everyone, make five cars slam on their brakes every day, and tell every automobile how evil it is. Yay!
Go to hell.

I was about to commend the Socketsite community for not lapsing into the same old prejudice. And then read Captain’s comment.
But the rest of you deserve a round of applause!
———————-
NoeValleyJim is on the money with the real solution. Streets should be prioritized for traffic. You can park cars anywhere.

Toady – Is the SFMTA obstructing any plans to construct a parking garage for the Polk commercial area? Has the SFMTA ever opposed replacing street parking with off-street parking? I don’t think so.
The only opposition to parking garages that I’m aware of is when the garage ADDS more spaces to an already congested area.

“The only opposition to parking garages that I’m aware of is when the garage ADDS more spaces to an already congested area.”
Huh? Congested with what, parking spaces? Areas with traffic congestion is EXACTLY where you need more off-street parking so you can get rid of on-street parking. But remind us what happens every time a developer proposes to build parking in these neighborhoods. Out come the “transit first” bible thumpers and then the Planning Commission bends over.

Congested with what? Um, cars.
I’d be fine with adding a parking garage here to replace the existing street parking, but not at public expense. The city-owned parking garage on Polk is a money pit, as it has an occupancy rate of 65% overall. It basically never fills up, and only goes above 50% occupancy on weekend nights. Hard to see why any developer would want to build one.

“3 lanes of cars in one direction can catch all green lights by doing 30MPH which creates a freeway effect.”
Dude, if you are in front of me on the freeway going 30MPH, I’m going to lean mercilessly on my horn, whip around you, give you the finger, and then cut you off.
Especially if you are on your bike.

i like these bike lines for zipping through on my motorcycle. Most motorcyclists and scooters will use these and that only seems fair, although the hipster bike crowd will most certainly not like it. punks trump hipsters. Several cyclists have caused a near crash for me, and more cyclists than cars in the last year have run out in front of me. Its only fair to return the favor in the bike lanes

^^^ fast vehicles should not be using bike lanes.
Which reminds me of an interesting aspect of bike lanes. While most cyclists appreciate them because they provide a dedicated space, they’re also a boon to auto traffic. In a narrow mixed lane, bikes need to ride near the center and that slows down car traffic. Give bikes a dedicated lane and both modes are happier.
For what its worth, cyclists who ride like jerks also annoy other cyclists.

How your SF long range planner (who wrote the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan) feels about planning, bikes, and stuff:http://www.woodenleg.org/research/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/SteveWetheim.pdf
“These days, planners are taught in graduate school to have a little bit of humility. We’re taught not to think we’re the greatest with all the solutions. We better listen to other people because we don’t know everything.”

Soccermom’s link about Steve Wetheim is somehow rather shocking to me. Basically you have someone who is making emotional decisions regarding transit and planning policy based on memories of what they did not like about how they grew up in a suburb? He makes it sound like he stumbled into planning because he liked riding bikes and somehow thinks San Francisco is better and ahead of the curve compared to other cities because people here carry yoga mats. (Has he ever been to New York or L.A.?) I noticed he makes NO consideration for business owners, the disabled, elderly, the poor, or parents with children in how he describes the city. He seems to view San Francisco as a city for young +$200K professionals who want to ride bikes.

Thanks for the interview with Steve Wertheim soccermon. I am very happy to see that people with his mindset are setting policy, it gives me hope for the future. Our generation is going to end up being the one to tackle the big problems left behind by The Boomers: global warming, resource depletion and pollution and he is ahead of his time on developing solutions to them.

The plans show the removal of 100 parking spaces and new bike lanes yet who is now complaining and howling the loudest? The SFBC (San Francisco Bike Coalition)!
The are “outraged” that “not enough” parking was removed. Reading the comments on their site and on Streetsblog they are calling for the removal of Supervisor Chiu to show their “disgust” at the outcome. Leah Shahum says she is furious because the new Polk Bike lane is “not safe for children” (was that the goal of the design from the beginning?). They get a bike lane yet they now seem more angry than ever which makes me wonder, is this about safe biking or about being anti-car? Read the comments demanding that ALL cars should have been removed from Polk Street.
I am no longer convinced the ultimate goal of Leah Shahum and the San Francisco Bike Coalition is to SHARE the road with other modes of transit.

No one is outraged that “not enough” parking was removed. Where did you get that quote from? Did you just “make it up”? Why the quotes? There is no bike lane on the busiest section of the street in the Northbound direction. Did you somehow miss that part? It is incomplete, which makes is worth very little. How are people going to get back and forth to The Marina?

Uh, the quotes are from the comments on both sitea, and from the SFGate article, and the San Francisco Examiner articles (linked by Meter Madness and District 5 Diary) about the Polk Street plan from yesterday and Friday. THAT is why I used quotes. I am about to go ride my bike myself, but if you are too lazy, I will post all the links to quotes tonight. BTW- interesting article in today’s New York Times about how buildings (especially tall towers) use more energy and resources than originally thought. “Transportation accounts for 33% of carbon emissions in the United States, while buildings account for 40%”. The worship on this site of tall residential towers as being “green” has been shot down by numerous studies, articles and books, yet so many here think a city of 50 story residential towers is “greener” than a city of 5 story buildings. To get water, people, hvac, etc up to the top floors requires a LOT of energy.

Hey NoeValleyJim, I found the article you were trying to find…http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/nyregion/whats-cooler-than-cool.html?_r=0
Also…the comments referred may have been from here: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Polk-Street-proposals-for-better-bicycle-safety-4673718.php
Or from the Streetsblog story
“Chiu is a m@$#herfu@#er!” (I censored the word)
or
“Wow, [board]Pres. Chiu. Supporting squeezing moms and babies between car doors and speeding traffic because a few people want parking. How quickly you chicken out just to keep an edge in next year’s Assembly race. Endangering the lives of San Franciscans for your political ambitions? Sad, David Chiu.”
What article are you reading? There are a lot more comments like this. They sound pretty angry to me.
“As for David Chiu, he is clearly a coward and a fraud. This betrayal will not be forgotten and he will have a very difficult time convincing anyone of his credibility going forward. He has zero integrity and the next injury or death that happens on Polk Street can be directly chalked up to his personal political ambition. Shame on Chiu.”

Where are the words “outraged”, or “not enough” parking in any of those stories or comments? They do not exist, they are a figment of your imagination. I actually checked all of the comments.
The Streetsblog story did not say “Chiu is a m@$#herfu@#er!” either, you are making that up too. The only person who said that was Rob Anderson, a bicycle-hating fanatic. He invented this statement as one of his typical Straw Man arguments against things that no one actually said. Are you Rob?

“The worship on this site of tall residential towers as being “green” has been shot down by numerous studies, articles and books, yet so many here think a city of 50 story residential towers is “greener” than a city of 5 story buildings. To get water, people, hvac, etc up to the top floors requires a LOT of energy.”
Do you believe that a city that covers 10 times (5 story vs 50 story) as much land and contains the same number of people uses less energy? On a per capita basis, I would think that a more dense city uses less energy particulary when accounting for transportation.

A city of 5 story buildings would have a much greater density than San Francisco as it currently exists. The number of single family homes in this city surprised me when I first moved here, and I actually feel the Westside of Los Angeles feels “denser” than a lot of San Francisco, especially the western neighborhoods.
The same could be said for the Bay Area in general.
I still laugh at my friends who live in single family homes with garages in Noe Valley who say they like San Francisco because it is “city living” but would not want to visit me on Russian Hill because there is “no parking”.

The worship on this site of tall residential towers as being “green” has been shot down by numerous studies, articles and books, yet so many here think a city of 50 story residential towers is “greener” than a city of 5 story buildings. To get water, people, hvac, etc up to the top floors requires a LOT of energy.
I don’t think there’s an argument that carpeting the whole city with five story buildings would be better than the city of mostly 2-3 story buildings with some areas of 50 story buildings – but that’s NOT the choice.
The choice is between a city of mostly 2-3 story buildings with some 50 story buildings and the city of mostly 2-3 story buildings with more 1-2 story buildings built at the edges of the metro area.
Are you seriously saying that:
1. 50 story buildings downtown are less environmentally friendly than suburban housing on the fringe?
2. It would be remotely possible to bulldoze the entire central and western halves of the city to build 5 story buildings?
Unless you believe one or the other is true, you’re flat out wrong that building 50 story buildings would not improve the situation.

Chris Brucherre gets zero jailtime for purposely running 3 red lights and killing a 71yr old woman. Apparently the DA is also pro-bike. This is an absolute shame on the city of SF. He should get at least 10yrs for felony manslaughter. But of course, he is rich, white, male, and well educated, so its a different justice system. Why do you think there are so many people who are anti-cyclist? Its because of jerks like this and the city who basically lets him off scott free. I hope the family of the victim gets every single penny and this man is forced to move to fresno

^^^ and he joins the ranks of motorists who kill a hundred people daily with no repercussions.
Jill – can we count on you to report every time a motorist gets off scott free for killing someone too? That would be about twice a day for the Bay Area.
The legal system should change. If you kill someone on the road, whether you hit them with a bike or car then there should be severe repercussions. Right now it is just “oops !” and then increased insurance premiums.

I wish too he’d had gotten jail time. Just to set an example to a sizable share of cyclists who believe that breaking the law is a proof they belong to some kind of counter-culture. They don’t. When everyone is an anti-conformist, the real anti-conformist is the square kid.
I have been on a bike since the 70s and never needed to run a red light to get to whatever I was going faster.
These apps that allow cyclists to size each other are also criminal, because after a certain level I guess the only option to beat the other guy is to break the law. It’s akin to juicing. One does it, the next guy will do it.
But not to worry, Bucchere’s life is over as he knew it. A quick Google search will make his prospects for employment or housing a nightmare. I wouldn’t rent him anything. I wouldn’t hire him. Heck I wouldn’t sell him my bike. Not a big enough punishment, but we’ll take whatever we can get.

MOD i will try my best. Could you also report the car deaths of pedestrians that are due to a motorist purposely running 3 red lights to beat his fastest time home on a mobile app, then asked about the status of his car after killing someone, and then posting that he was too committed to stop

Not sure if anyone else laughed at the pictures posted on various sites of the SFMTA/SFGov owned Prius and Ford Hybrid cars that were driven by city staff to the last Polk Street meeting. The pictures speak for themselves, and don’t forget, many of these vehicles are exempt from having to feed parking meters.

“The worship on this site of tall residential towers as being “green” has been shot down by numerous studies, articles and books
I don’t believe you, prove it. Prove to me that 100 families living in a tower use more energy than 100 families living in a suburban development. Because I just don’t believe it. Show me the studies. Link to the articles. Give me the names of the books, I will read them.

Why don’t they take the 40 MILLION the SFMTA is going to spend to fill in the Geary Blvd underpass and use that money for the Polk Street bike project instead?
The Geary underpass was built to increase pedestrian/bike safety on Fillmore Street by moving auto traffic underground, and now they want to rip it out? The Polk Street design was about separating cars from bikes and pedestrians and the Geary project will be the exact opposite.
I give up.

“The Geary underpass was built to increase pedestrian/bike safety…”
No, it was built to speed up auto traffic flow on Geary. The improvement for pedestrians on Filmore was just a side benefit.
I don’t understand the plan to fill this in either. It would also have a negative impact on Geary bus timetables including future BRT.

It would also have a negative impact on Geary bus timetables including future BRT.
Why? The buses don’t use the underpass, and wouldn’t for BRT either unless there was a plan to not have a stop at Fillmore?

One comment on the Geary underpass S.F. Examiner article was especially interesting and now I understand what is driving the project…
” I’m old enough to remember the reason for the Geary underpass at Fillmore and Geary Streets. The reason it is there is for pedestrian safety and vehicle movement. That’s the reason there’s also a pedestrian overpass at Webster. Prior to those two being built many accidents involving automobiles and pedestrians occurred at these 2 intersections. Way back in the 1950’s, a Geary corridor existed. All the rails were removed and the road filled in. I think the central corridor for buses is going to cause many pedestrian fatalities as people cross to and from the buses in the center of the street. So, going back to where they once came from makes zero sense to me. Especially with the increase in ridership, having the access to mass transportation in the middle of the street is a dangerous and ill thought out idea”.

” the League of American Wheelmen (today the League of American Bicyclists) lobbied for the first paved roads in cities across the U.S.”
There is an interesting history presented in this article on the rise, fall, and rise again of bicyclists having political power. Paved roads were created originally in cities NOT for the automobile, but for bikes, and the Pasadena Viaduct was the world’s first bike freeway from Pasadena to Downtown Los Angeles. (Unfortunately this was torn down and an auto freeway was built in its place)
” Is it possible that the interests of mass transit riders and cyclists – two groups that make up the core of Transportation Alternatives’ membership – could diverge in the future over competition for street space?”http://www.salon.com/2013/09/07/political_power_on_two_wheels_dont_mess_with_the_bikers/singleton/

I am happy to report that the contra flow lane on Polk Street opened today.
The Planners presented a plan to the MTA Board that included a bike lane to Sacramento and no bike lane after that. The Board sent them back to the drawing board, rightfully so. Vice Chairman of the Board, Cheryl Brinkman said: “We need to be willing to step up and make those hard decisions, and understand that what we see as the needs for transportation in the city, may not jive with what we’re hearing loudly expressed in certain areas,” she said. ”We do need to step up say, ‘No, we need to re-allocate space, it has been mis-allocated for so long.’”
The Good Guys are winning this fight and the parking-obsessed Neanderthals are beginning to realize it.

I am currently living in LV, NV and can tell you that the car-centric lifestyle is hard to get used to. Walking or cycling here is almost considered reckless self-endangerment. People are just not used to sharing the space and not much is done to make sure it ever changes. It’s nobody’s fault except for decades of bad policy.
SF is trying to wean itself from unnecessary driving, and accidents that are happening show it’s a work in progress. But it is happening nonetheless.
I think viewing driving in a low footprint / high density city is privilege and not a right.
We need more separation between cars and humans. We need more disincentives for driving like a congestion tax like London. We need better public transit, maybe funded through a congestion tax?

Ummmm aren’t you the one building a garage for your second car?
Nahhh, the internet could never support that level of hypocrisy. That’d be like someone who spent half their time in SF in a rent controlled apartment coming on SS to rant against rent control every day.
Or like flujie changing his handle constantly and then regularly going unhinged on people accusing them of being tipster.
Nahhh, that must be some *other* Internet I’m thinking of.

What? A garage for a second car? Get your facts straight. You are probably talking about futurist.
In any case, I am working remotely therefore I am not commuting. But for shopping, meeting friends, going out, there is no real alternative to cars. Even cycling always starts with a drive in LV, to where it’s safe to cycle. And oddly enough there’s plenty of good cycling, mountain biking around LV.

“Get your facts straight.”
NVJ, lquyd?
It’s just so terribly hard to keep track of who is out there preaching the evils of cars while owning a car vs who is out there preaching the evils of cars while owning two cars.

I think it was NoeValleyJim who admitted in the past to owning a car. I am not sure if he was the one who called cars “death machines”, but it is funny to read anti-car comments from car owners who would love to not “have” to use an automobile, but are sure they can demand that we stop using our automobiles first.

I’m pretty sure that they’re not demanding that anyone stop using an automobile, but rather that we stop building everything around automobiles. That position is not contradictory with owning a car.
I speed on the freeway every now and then, but I don’t think that we should get rid of speed limits.

^ Agreed 100% ^
At least people should be provided with the option of not having to use a car in their daily lives. Everyone should have a reasonable choice. Right now some options like cycling haven’t been developed to their full potential.

Go ahead and take the first step NoeValleyJim. Get rid of the car you drive and only walk, use MUNI or ride your bike.
BTW- you are aware of the Google bus that hit the pedestrian about 4 months ago? Should the “madness” of dangerous bus traffic stop as well?

That linked article cobbles together disparate scenarios. Jay walking whilst looking at one’s phone is a very poor decision. Motorists are certainly to blame sometimes, but so are stupid pedestrians and bikers. Personally I have never seen so many people pull the move of actually stepping off the curb while waiting to cross at a light as I have in San Francisco. This is the most foolish move one can make. Nothing, but nothing, can be gained by stepping off the safety of the curb. Yet it’s commonplace here. Bizarre stuff, and I blame parents.

I did not own a car at all for over 15 years, but after SFUSD gave my daughter a school assignment to a location that I could not physically bicycle with my daughter on the back (it is too steep) we bought a car. I have driven less than 1000 miles over the last decade and avoid driving as much as possible. How many miles have you driven over the last 10 years anon2?
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at August 13, 2013 7:46 AM

NoeValleyJim, before links are posted to statements you have made on this site that you do own a car, are you now saying it is your wife’s car? Didn’t you make an excuse and say you only owned a car because of your children? Be careful, Socketsite has a wonderful search engine and it will only take two minutes to show that YOU said your family owns and uses a car. I don’t remember a lot of people’s posts, but yours are so over the top with car hating hysteria, the fact you admitted owning a car has been easy to remember.

“If it’s too hard for you to keep track, then I might suggest a less intellectually strenuous activity like being angry on SFGATE instead.”
Cut me some slack!
It looks like the people preaching the evils of cars don’t even know how many cars they own.
Pssst, NVJ. Try leasing a car. That way you can preach about the evils of cars while, wink wink, not owning a car.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Babysitter-boy-hit-by-car-crossing-S-F-street-5305298.php
It is just amazing to me that you car drivers think that it is okay to run over children in crosswalks. You just don’t take any responsibility for your behavior and you obviously can’t police your own ranks.
Don’t be surprised if the rest of us keep trying to put restrictions on your behavior. I have decided that “Twenty is Plenty” is a good thing for San Francisco. We should have 20 MPH speed limits, camera enforced, everywhere except maybe a few expressways. I am going to push as hard as I can to make this happen. You can thanks yourself for this Oh Brother!
I haven’t been posting much to socketsite because I have been busy with local politics.

@NoeValleyJim…”you car drivers”….what about yourself since you wrote on this site that you also owned and used a car? You were “outed” in your own fib right above on this thread amongst others. I find your whole car fetish rather creepy. Do you go into your garage late at night and secretly beat your car?
The accident you mentioned was on Fulton in the Richmond District, not Polk btw.

Um, I think NoeValleyJim was just mocking the folks who paint all bicyclists with the “flagrant fixie riding stop sign runner” brush. You’ve probably seen comments like “As soon as bicyclists start obeying the laws we’ll treat them like first class citizens” repeated 100X over here on SocketSite.